“Retina” MacBook Pros shipping next year? It’s possible

Apple could be ready to launch a MacBook Pro with a "Retina"-class display beginning sometime next year. A new display of unspecified size reportedly being built for Apple will have a 2880x1800 pixel resolution, according to sources speaking to DigiTimes. Although the source may seem sketchy, the claims are plausible, and such a display would be a perfect fit for Lion's little-known, resolution-doubled "HiDPI" display technology.

A 2880x1800 pixel display would have a density of about 220 pixels per inch at a 15.4" size, which is double the density of the current default 1440x900 display. Such a pixel density coincides nicely with Lion's hidden HiDPI display options, which double the number of pixels used for user interface elements. The technique is essentially identical to that used in iOS to create "Retina" graphics for the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and fourth-generation iPod touch. Such pixel doubling is also believed to be behind an upcoming iPad hardware revision with an expected 2048x1536 pixel 9.7" display, with a roughly 266ppi pixel density.

While 220ppi doesn't quite approach the 326ppi of the current iPhone "Retina" display, it would make the visible appearance of pixels difficult to distinguish at typical laptop viewing distances. A generally accepted standard of the resolving power of the human eye is that a person with 20/20 vision can just barely discern two distinct elements that are one arc minute (or 1/60 of a degree) apart. For a display with 220ppi, the individual pixels would disappear at about 15.6"; sitting up at a desk and typing, my face is about 16" away from the display of my MacBook Air.

The sources allegedly come from "upstream component suppliers" who suggest that Apple could release new MacBook Pro models as early as the second quarter of next year. And while DigiTimes does not have a good record for accuracy, this timeline does make it somewhat plausible. Apple is expected to have similar resolution displays ready for the iPad 3 in early spring, and the same technology would likely be used to make such a high-resolution display suitable for the MacBook Pro. Furthermore, Intel should be shipping its next-generation Ivy Bridge processors around the second quarter of next year. Apple will undoubtedly refresh its MacBook Pros to use the new processors, and its upgraded graphics are capable of driving such a high resolution display.

Apple's display resolutions for laptops have been slowly creeping upward, especially since the launch of revised MacBook Air models on October 2010. The 11" model has a pixel density of 135ppi, while the 13" model is 128dpi. A high resolution display option for the 15" MacBook Pro also checks in at 128ppi, while the 17" MacBook Pro measures 132ppi.

If this is true, I hope it brings down the component prices of high-resolution displays. I'm sick of the fact that my 4-year-old 1920 x 1200 24'' monitor is still the best option under $500. And I'm also fed up with 1366x768 notebook displays.

Well, at 135 ppi I'm already having trouble seeing the dots. Clearly, the killer app will be a fresnel "shade" that I can pull down in front of my Retina MacBook Air. The downside will be that it makes my nose look really big in FaceTime.

Ivy Bridge should bring enough 'oomph' to drive displays of that resolution, for video and light 3D at least. Especially if some effects could run at essentially 1/4 res and look exactly the same as they do now.

Wouldn't the power draw increase with the increased pixel density? The graphics would draw more power and display driver would require more power to refresh the screen (much less of an increase than the graphics processing). Would Apple put in a feature where on battery the screen runs at 1/4 resolution to save power and full resolution when on A/C power, similar to reducing the number of cores on the i7 while on battery?

Wouldn't the power draw increase with the increased pixel density? The graphics would draw more power and display driver would require more power to refresh the screen (much less of an increase than the graphics processing). Would Apple put in a feature where on battery the screen runs at 1/4 resolution to save power and full resolution when on A/C power, similar to reducing the number of cores on the i7 while on battery?

I know what you are saying, maybe the rumour people are getting carried away. It doesn't seem very apple to have displays switching resolutions based on if they are plugged in or not! also, at reduced res, it would look horrible!

So its either not going to happen next year, or apple have invented a new battery, or super low power consumption (but powerful) graphics card, maybe a similar chip that might power a retina display iPad.

They may use their A6 chips in conjunction with an intel processor or something.... who knows!

Should be interesting tho.... bring on web 3.0 because the internet is going to look like shit!

But will the GPU be powerful enough to drive this at reasonable performance?

Anyway this can't come out soon enough. Computer display resolutions have stagnated for so long now, with 1920 columns still being the standard, and 2560 still merely a niche market for extra-large displays.

They still haven't figure out resolution independence, eh? Most of the time I don't need sharper fonts, I need more space to put shit.

Though, maybe this will stop my parents from setting their LCD displays to a non-native resolution to "make everything bigger." If two tiny pixels are the same size as one small pixel, maybe using three tiny pixels will give them the 1.5 pixels they so desperately need...

Wouldn't the power draw increase with the increased pixel density? The graphics would draw more power and display driver would require more power to refresh the screen (much less of an increase than the graphics processing). Would Apple put in a feature where on battery the screen runs at 1/4 resolution to save power and full resolution when on A/C power, similar to reducing the number of cores on the i7 while on battery?

I think most of the power draw of an LCD is the backlight anyway, which remains the same size.

Now if they could just provide a way to increase font-size globally to make their already-high resolutions useful for the over-40 crowd... Windows 7 already does a fairly good job of that, why can't Mac OSX?

resolution independence? finally? otherwise this is pointless. my high-res MBP is already almost unusable for any casual use. course I just jack up the zoom in browsers but for everything else... bring it on if they handle it elegantly though.

So the whole argument that Steve Jobs himself proposed that it needs to be 300+ PPI goes out the window now? And basically everything from 200 PPI to 300 is "Retina" too?

Then I guess the 3.7" 800x480 phones were "retina" all along! And before even the iPhone 4 existed.

The DPI isn't the sole factor in what make a display a so-called "Retina Display." There's also the average distance between eyes and the display. On a cell phone, 300+ DPI is 'retina' according to Apple because you tend to hold it closer to your face than a laptop screen. On a laptop, a DPI of 220 will probably be 'retina' as well, because the screen is farther away...

Though, maybe this will stop my parents from setting their LCD displays to a non-native resolution to "make everything bigger." If two tiny pixels are the same size as one small pixel, maybe using three tiny pixels will give them the 1.5 pixels they so desperately need...

There would be four pixels in the space of where there now is one. Remember… the resolution is being doubled in two dimensions, not just one. That requires quadrupling the pixel density.

and all those 800x600 photos you've uploaded to flickr are going to look like a joke.

somehow I don't distinguish pixels on my non-retina display. I can, but I don't.

another marketing trick to refresh your macbooks.

(a) Your 800x600 photos will look EXACTLY the same as right now. Do you not understand how this technology works? How do you imagine they will look like a joke? Where is the quality loss expected to occur?

(b) A marketing trick? What exactly is your mental model of how the world works? Do you expect hordes of Apple fans to simply buy these new machines for no reason other than this new spec? If you honestly think this is the way Apple works, then why would they bother using a High DPI screen (which is not cheap) to perform this voodoo? Why not advertise a different pointless BS system --- oohh, now with a 192kHz ADC audio system!!! --- to bring in all these brainwashed zombies?

For god's sake. Open a freaking technical PDF on your mac today. I have one open on my 24" iMac. At normal reading distance, I cannot see individual pixels, but I CAN see that the text is not as beautiful and crisp as it could be --- it certainly doesn't, for example, look like print at the same distance.

I do not understand this insane hating on any Apple attempt to improve technology. What is wrong with you people? Apple starts with better support for digital displays via DVI and Display Port and gets a world of complaints from the internet; then Thunderbolt and more complaints; then better iOS screens and more complaints; now today. Are you so invested in you hatred for Apple that you would rather see technology stand still and simply never improve along any dimension from what we have today?

I do not understand this insane hating on any Apple attempt to improve technology.

I think some of it stems from Apple's tendency to buy up all the <whatever> so no competitors can have any of it. And then to make asinine marketing statements like "it's magical" and other marketing claims that are regurgitated by the ignorant for years to come and having the audacity to tell people who are having problems with Apple hardware things like "You're holding it wrong". Also, Apple's trend lately of being patent trolls.

Wouldn't the power draw increase with the increased pixel density? The graphics would draw more power and display driver would require more power to refresh the screen (much less of an increase than the graphics processing). Would Apple put in a feature where on battery the screen runs at 1/4 resolution to save power and full resolution when on A/C power, similar to reducing the number of cores on the i7 while on battery?

Jesus of all the stupid comments...We heard EXACTLY the same thing when rumors of the iPhone Retina display came out. How did that work out.

Apple have been doing this for 30 years, they have professionals who have devoted their lives to building hardware, they are obsessed with both smooth animation and low power. But no, some random guy on the internet has seen the crucial step they somehow missed out in adopting this idea --- at the planning stage, then at every level of hardware testing --- more pixels will require a better GPU than is currently available and a whole lot more power! Stupid stupid Apple --- maybe next time you'll do whatever other high tech company does and ask the internet to design your next product. I hear it was the comments from Fark that helped Intel do such a good job with Sandy Bridge, and I believe Craigslist was instrumental in designing Metro.

So the whole argument that Steve Jobs himself proposed that it needs to be 300+ PPI goes out the window now? And basically everything from 200 PPI to 300 is "Retina" too?

Then I guess the 3.7" 800x480 phones were "retina" all along! And before even the iPhone 4 existed.

As others mentioned, the viewing distance matters, too. So, for the 326ppi of the iPhone 4/4S, that distance is about 10". For a theoretical "Retina" 2048x1536px 9.7" iPad display at ~266ppi, that distance is 13". For a 220ppi 15" laptop, that distance is about 16", which just so happens to be the distance from my face to my MBA screen while I'm sitting up in my chair and typing.

Hmmm just payed an insane amount of money for a nice 1050p Macbook Pro and would be slightly pissed. On the other hand as the first poster said, it would pretty much kill Bootcamp so I am not sure if I even wanted that. Perhaps I really have the last general purpose Mac. Which wouldn't be a bad thing. :-)

So the whole argument that Steve Jobs himself proposed that it needs to be 300+ PPI goes out the window now? And basically everything from 200 PPI to 300 is "Retina" too?

Then I guess the 3.7" 800x480 phones were "retina" all along! And before even the iPhone 4 existed.

As others mentioned, the viewing distance matters, too. So, for the 326ppi of the iPhone 4/4S, that distance is about 10". For a theoretical "Retina" 2048x1536px 9.7" iPad display at ~266ppi, that distance is 13". For a 220ppi 15" laptop, that distance is about 16", which just so happens to be the distance from my face to my MBA screen while I'm sitting up in my chair and typing.

He's not serious. He does understand, I suppose, though I replied that he didn't. He's just trying to be a wise guy. If Microsoft did this, then people who are complaining or making snide comments would be praising it instead.

I love watching movies. If the screen makes movies and videos look better than I think its a good change. I don't watch movies on my laptop if I can help it. I grab my hdmi cord and hook it up. I would be a little jealous if these new Macbook Pro screens display movies and picture better than my current tv.